Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-04-30 City Council Summary Minutes1 1 CITY COUNCIL 1 MINUTES' CITY or PALO TO Special Meeting Monday, April 30, 1.9+34 ITEM PAGE Oral Communications Minutes of March 12, 1984 Consent Calendar Agenda .Changes, Additions and Deletions Item #1, Downtown Study Item #2, Police Department's Selection Process for Entry --Level Police Officers Item #3, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission P:=commendations re City of Pa o Alto Zoning Ordinance Text Changes to the Civic Center (C) Combining District Item #4, PUBLIC BEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation re Application of City of Palo Alto for Comprehensive Land Use Map Change for Property located at 390 Page Mill Road; and Change ofZone District for Properties at 300 and 390 Page Mill Road Item #5, Planning Commission Recommendation re Application of Ebert,•Hannun and Voltz for Site and Design Approval for Property located at 720 Los Trancos Road Item #6, Ordinance re Moratorium for GM Area Along Park Boulevard Item #7, Amendment to Senior Coordinat: g Council Jobs till/CDBG Contract Recess to Executive _Session re Litigation Reconsideration of Item #5, re 720 Los Trancos Road Item #8, Santa Clara , Valley Water . District's Palo -Alto Flood Basin Project Adjournment: L2:00 midnight 4 4 5 7 4 4 5 9 4 4 5 9 4 4 5 9 4 4 5 9 4 4 6 0 4 4 6 0 4 4 6 1 4 4 6 2 4 4.6 3 4 4 7 2 - 4 4 7 2 4 4 7 4 4 7 3 4 4 8 5_ /30 81 Special Meeting Monday, April 30, 1984 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton 'venue, Palo Alto, at 7:35 p.m. In accordance with GC Section 54956 and PAMC 2.04.020, no business other than the items listed on the printed agenda shall he considered by the City Council at this Special Meeting. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Sutorius, Witherspoon, Woolley Mayor Klein announced the need for an Executive Session re litiga- tion to be held .at some point during. the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, was disturbed by the Council action with regard to the appeal (ARB) of the Architectural Review Board .,�,rd ., decision regarding 3101 Park Boulevard. The appeal was not rejected by Council because of a traffic problem in the area or because of a land issue, or because offices were a desir- able use. Council ignored the legal considerations; that is, a developer did not have a legal vested right in a project un- til after a building permit was issued and substantial devel- opment on the site occurred. When similar issues previously came up, the former City Attorney said the Council had wide magisterial discretion in such issues, and could deny, refer, or modify the projects. The issues discussed were fairness and not changing the rules in the middle of the game. He was concerned that the City was being fair to the developer, but not to the Comprehensive Plan, the public, or the City as a whole. It was not fair to allow projects to proceed with acknowledged adverse impacts in the community. When the Com- prehensive Plan was adopted, a number of projects __were zoned out .of conformance. None of the developers were at the point where a building permit was issued, some had preliminary ARB review, and some had ARB approval. Those five projects were all denied by unanimous Vote of the then City Council. Since the City Council recognized the problem in the Park and Page Mill area and the GM zone -and asked for studies, he could riot understand why the Council allowed a -project to go forward when` there was no legal need to dti so. The rules were clear the Council could at any time review the land use and zoning of the City, review projects, and if desired, make modifica- tions. Since the Council was he [ u Lail L i.t be proactive and frequently was reactive, the --problem occurred tire` and again. He requested that Council reconsider- its motion of least week and review what happened and what might happen in the area and recognize that until - a developer had a building permit, Coun- cil had the discretion to act for all the people. Several weeks ago Mayor Klein was upset`.because people critized some- thing that Was on the agenda, and he said the Council was. elected by all of the people of the City of Palo Alto. -- He hoped Council would bear that in mind. Everyone needed the vision of the Council in looking at land use, zoning and plan- ning and he requested that then vision ,be used. He quoted I sal ash : 'When -the. leaders laced vision the' people perished," 2. Ernest Weeks, trustee of property at 1681-91 El Camino Real, said on March 12, 1984 Council declared an emergency -morator- ium- an his:.property, which action -he and his representatives, consultants, etc.., believed had no factual .merit. Council ,minutes of -- the March 12, 1984 meeting became available that Morning, but were not available prior. to..:, the April 25, 1184 Planning Commission meeting which discussed the Council re—. questr to study 1681-91. He _previously- requested that the moratorium be rescinded on his property, and on April 25, the Planning Commission was urged to recommend its rescission with- out delay. .The Weeks family received no response from the Council nor was the matter_ discussed at the Commission level. He understood the Council directed the Planning Commission to study R-2, but not limited to residential recommendations; the 25 foot setback, which he believed was illegal. The Council instruction; to study residential use was an intent to satisfy voting residents at the total expense of the Weeks estate, and a confiscation of his property for resident enjoyment. Staff interfaced with business and residents until the demands of the residents were satisfied. There was no R -3(P) type zoning use when the property was purchased in 1976. The Estate was told by -staff that there was no flexibility in the City of Palo Alto zoning for discussion ors office buildings, while .a "T" being put on RM and CN office use was being modified by staff to ac- commodate perceived requirements. Since. 1978 and in good faith, the estate pursued feasibility studies and staff con- tacts- and relied en their -assurances of use, zone and code interpretations. Nothing was hidden, but two moratoriums appeared within days of their contacts.and without any warning. The property was underdeveloped and was zoned professional of- fice, and there was no disagreement fro:,l staff. With each mor- atorium went more downzoning. The Council • was asked to recog- nize cast the property which cloud continued � 1 � L e t h e cloud 1. a _) i. over � [ i 1. ,J � - v'+ � � :. J with the Planning Commission recommendation of RM-2(T) plus a grandfather clause. The estate requested that Council to honor its responsible acts, which determination was easy if the in- tent was to honor reasonableness, facts and fairness. He pointed out that the property presently had a professional of- fice position in the marketplace; that the responsible acts of the Estate be recognized; that an R -3(P) type zoning or a CN zone be applied; they be kept advised in a timely manner of any actions regarding the property in order to -keep equal protec- tion; that the emergency moratorium be rescinded at the next City Council meeting; that Council weigh the credibility and possible conflicts of interest. On behalf of the estate, he provided Council with the following documents, which were on file in the City Clerk's office a. Rejected AR3 application under CS zone. moratorium for a 21,250 square feet cf; ee building, which was allowed under the City ordinances and recognized as legal; b. Rejected variance application; c. Letter in support of documentation stating that the 25 foot setback was illegal; and d. Architect's statement to Planning Commission on -April 25. 3. Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, was -concerned about hous- ing because the. ARB agenda included three applications for 87,000 square feet of office in three separate projects, 66,00© square feet and two projects of which were downtown. It did not include the third floor addition to Mecy's for another 11,000 square feet of commercial space, and more jobs for the City. The two pro ,ects downtown proposed underground garages, and one had two levels. She was concerned about the job pressure on the existing housing market, and did net believe Council effectively dealt with the jobs/housing- i ±- balance. It was important .to create a,sustainable city, and she believed that. in 19777 the Council foresaw the need to b.bild into the Comprehensive Plan a way for the City to reduce job_ growth, and do everything possible for -housing; If_ job growth continued Council Was _making- a mockery Of -the housing, transportation, and employment elements of the Comprehensive Plan; _ and of the citizens who participated in the government process in good faith, with the hope that somehow, the future Could be influenced. 4 4 5 8 4/30/84 MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 1984 Councilmember Renzel had the following correction: Page 4298, fourth line, insert word "only" after second part of worn "prepared." MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, ap- proval of the Minutes of March 12, 1984, as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously,. CONSENT CALENDAR None AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Mayor Klein said Item #8, Santa Cara Valley Water District (SCVWD)/Palo Alto Flood Basin Project,: was listed as a report from City officials and should have been listed as unfinished business because Council authorized a consultant report with respect to the Water District proposal. MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Renzel, to bring forward Item 18, SCYWO/Palo Alto Flood Basin Project as Item 2-A to be considered ofter Item /2, Police Department Selection Process. Vice Mayor Levy asked if those involved in Item #5,- Moratorium Ordinance for GM area, were advised of the change because it would be a long item and he was concerned that it might not be heard until 10:00 p.m. Mayor Klein said no, but Item #8, should have been listed as Item 3. Vice Mayor Levy said since the announcements to the public were for the agenda as it appeared, he believed it was unfair to those members of the public who attended the meeting solely for Item #6 to put Item #8 ahead. He would not support the change in agenda order. City Attorney Diane Lee advised that once the agenda was pub- lished, it was appropriate to have a motion since people relied on the form. Mayor Klein clarified the error was harmless and the agenda did not have to be corrected. Ms. Lee said yes. MOTION WITHDRAWN ITEM #1, DOWNTOWN STUDY (PLA 7-13) (Continued from 4/23/84) MOTION: Corncilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval of the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $26,500 for the Downtown Study. ORDINANCE 3525 entitled "ORDINANCE OF. THE COUNCII. OF THE vW YALU ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL TEAR 1983-84 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION IN THE PLANNING DIVISION FOR THE DOWNTOWN STUDY WORK PROGRAM" Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, urged the Council to deny the funding for the study because 66,000 square feet of office space, scheduled before the ARB next Thursday, was for downtown, and in a few months the findings ,of a study would be worthless. 4 4 5 .9 4/30/84 Anne Ercoiani, 2040 Ash, associated herself with the comments of Ms. Petrosian. She spent two years attending meetings regarding California Avenue with the idea that downzoning might reduce the growth potential. A year before that study was completed, a mora- torium was suggested because while the study was underway, appli- cations were made. Staff did not agree, but Council imposed a moratorium after four major applications were made and would be built on California Avenue because they were approved during the study period. If Council was going to spend the money, she believed it was fiscally .responsiblesto atop the building in the meantime because the parking requirements were not enough. While downzoning and proposals seemed good on paper, most buildable space was used by the grandfathered iri projects. City Manager Bill Zaner urged the Council to adopt the budget amendment ordinance. There was extensive public discussion over a series of meetings, Council gave direction with regard to the downtown study and reduced its sco::e somewhat, and staff was in the process of carrying out those instructions. The amount of money necessary was indicated when the material was presented, and it was the amount necessary to carry out Council instructions. Councilmember Cobb said if the defacto moratorium was not working, it should be toughened but the study must go ahead. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #2, POLICE DEPARTMENT'S SELECTION PROCESS FOR ENTRY-LEVEL TT"T r on inue ram -7l rcmv:27 :4) City Manager Sill Zaner said the item was removed from the Consent Calendar on April 23, by Councilmember Sutorius. Councilmember Sutorius said in the interim period, he and Jay Rounds discussed the matter, and he supported the matter. MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, ap- proval of an additional $5,500 to complete the project to bring the total of the amended agreement to an amount not to exceed $15,000. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT Biddle & Associates MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #3, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION -RECOMMENDATIONS. RE • • Mayor Klein said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that Council take the following actions for zoning ordinance text changes to the Civic Center (C) Combining District: I. Remove the (C) Combining District from the zoning ordinance and zoning map, 2. Impose b' setbacks in the Civic. Center area; and 3. Direct staff to return withComprehensive Plan policies. Councilmember Witherspoon said .the district had a minimum height below which one could not build, and she asked staff to .comment. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said the. staff, Planning Commis- sion, end ARS recommended the district be removed entirely. It was originally intended to set a minimum building height to give the City Hall structure a sense of place and form a sense of cl o - sure around the Civic Center complex and create "public space." There were requirements to prohibit the visibility of parking and 4 4 6 0 4/30/84 the establishment of minimum setbacks. Staff recommended the min- imum setbacks be maintained and included in a special setback map, and the other portions of the district be -removed. Councilmember Witherspoon clarified that economics would dictate that no one replaced a building around City Hall with a one-story building. Mr. Brown said that was correct. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open, Receiving no re- quests from the public to speak, he declared the public closed. Councilmember Renzel believed it was appropriate to remove the zone. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the ordinance to remove the Civic Center (C) Combining District from the zoning ordinance and zoning map and amending the Special Setback Map to require minimum building setbacks of six feet on properties facing the City Hall -Library complex. Staff to return to Council with a comprehensive urban design element policies re- lated to design objectives for the development of properties sur- rounding City Hall. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COTWC11 OF T11 (ACT OF 'PALO ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REPEAL. CHAPTER 18.79 CIVIC CENTER COMBINING DISTRICT (C) REGULATIONS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 20.08 (SETBACK LINES) TO ADD A SPECIAL SETBACK IN THE CIVIC UTTER AREAw MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #4, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ITTSITITT7731 Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the item contained -a Comprehensive Plan change which needed a resolution and ordinance. He said there was a minor correction to the wording of the resolution to eliminate the specific zones and to use land use classifications of neighborhood commercial and multiple family residential. Planning Commissioner Joe Hirsch said it was apparent that the CN zone was maintained previously because of the Shell gas station, but since it was gone, a change in the land use designation ap- peared appropriate.- The dominant zone in the area was RM-5 including the adjacent parcel at 300 -Page .Mill Road, and common land use designation and zone with the parcel at 300 Page Mill would create the possibility of having the entire two parcels developed together as one project for housing. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open. Frank Jordan, Property Agent from Santa Clara County Transporta- tion Agency. said the property would be better served by a .rezon- ing to RM-5_ Mayor Klein declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Schreiber said the wording changes in the resolution elimi- nated the reference to zoning districts CN and RP -5, and read 'changes from neighborhood commercial to multiple family residen- tial." He clarified the resolution was for the land use change and it only referred to the land use designations in the Compre- hensive Plan. 4 4 6 1 4/30/84 MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by iii tiles spoon , to approve the Planning Commission recommendation finding that there will not be an adverse environmental impact and, that the property at 390 Page Mill Road be designated Multiple Family Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Lane Use Map, and zoned RM-5. RESOLUTION 6252, AS CORRECTED entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE LITITHrTL Uf lift CITY OF FALO ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY AT 390 PAGE MILL ROAD FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO MULTIPLE FAMILY" ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE PAL0 ALTO AMENDING SECT/ON 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 390 PAGE MILL ROAD FROM CN TO RM-5" Vice Mayor Levy believed the rezoning to RM-S was appropriate. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM # L V V [l I Affinorfirrr-rnr= FRANcua 5, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION OF i Planning Commissioner Joe Hirsch said the Commission by a vote of 6-1, upheld the staff denial because the added measure of protec- tion afforded by the requested replacement of three strands of wire with three strands of barbed wire was insufficient to out- weigh the concerns regarding the use of barbed wire in the open space zone and elsewhere throughout the City, which was consis- tently discouraged by the ARB and Planning Commission. The only exception was the quarry rehabilitation project to prevent human intervention in a dangerous situation and the revegetation process with subsequent removal of the :barbed wi re after the revegetation process. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if it was appropriate as an alter- native to the barbed wire to ask for a higher fence or that the existing fence be electrified. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said that was suggested by Commis- sioner Chandler at the Planning Commission meeting, but died for lack of a second. It would require a fence exception from the Chief Building Official, but the Commission did not recommend that possibility. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if height and electrification required a variance. Mr. Brown said the height required a fence exception. Councilmember Witherspoon clarified it, was not Council col icy discourage electric deer fences in the foothills. Mr. Brown said it was a Council decision, but staff suggested it was not -a good policy. MOTION2 Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Klein, to up- hold the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the applica- tion of Ebert, Hannvm and Voltz for the proposed addition of barbed wire at 720 Los Trancos Road to an existing fence for the Hewlett Residence, finding that the proposal is incompatible with the environmental and ecological objectives in the foothills. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Witherspoon voting "ono." 4 4 6 2 4{30/ 84 IIE.M #b, ORDINANCE RE MORATORIUM FOR GM AREA ALONG PARK BOULEVARD Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the ordinance responded to a Council direction last Monday night for a moratorium for the GM areas along Park Boulevard not includ- ing 3101 Park Boulevard, He said 3101 Park Boulevard was a proj- ect of approximately 40,000 square feet, and the site under cur- rent GM zoning would permit approximately 68,000 square feet of development. There were no applications for the additional amount of development, but if Council wanted to include 3101 Park Boule- vard in the moratorium to cover the remaining development poten- tial beyond that approved by the Council last week --the remaining approximately 28,000 square feet --staff had _the appropriate ordi- nance amendment and modified map for Council consideration. Coun- cil received a letter from the architect, property owner, and another letter from Mr. Hohbach was at the Council places that evening, all of which were on file in the City Clerk's office, regarding the project at 216 Park Boulevard, which application was submitted in December, 1983. After preliminary review at the ARB, the formal application- was reviewed on March 15. The ARB conti- nued the item because of a number of concerns regarding redesign of the project due to blacking, bulky character, uninspired build- ing materials, etc , and for further investigation of bicycle and pedestrian access. On April 5, the ARB considered the matter for a second time, and referred the project to the Planning Commission and City Council. Currently, the project was awaiting Planning Commission review. Prior to the referral, the ARS was concerned about the following: 1. Traffic: Automobiles, pedestrian and bicycles. 2. The community housing situation for the 20,000 square foot office building. 3. Design: The ARB noted that the revised building design was similar to the original proposal; it appeared to be too mas- sive and there was extensive grading. It concluded "that a complete redesign of the proposed building is necessary and that the current design could not be approved." Mr. Schreiber said the project was recommended for denial by the ARB with the referral to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration of design and broader planning issues especially traffic. The moratorium ordinance as submitted would not exempt the project from further processing, but there would be ne further consideration of the project until after the moratorium ordinance lapsed. The project could be considered if exempted from the mor- atoilum, which action was essentially consistent with the way other moratoria were enacted by the Council. If the project was exempted, the item could be taken up by the Planning Commission on May 30, and considered and acted on 04-. considered and held over for further review, The applicant returned to. the ARB on April 19 and requested reconsideration of the project He understood the. ARB believed reconsideration was possible under Roberts Rules of Order, but it would take four=fifths of the ARB to re urra a rm Tor reconsideration. The ARB said it would only reconsider with a complete redesign -of the project. The item was at the Planning Commission, but could be returned to the ARB if exempted from the :provisions of the meratoripr. - .Mayor Klein-asked•at which stage Council grandfathered or exempted projects from moratoria. City Attorney Diane .Lee said Mr. Schreiber .compiled an analysis.. of the various moratoria ordinances prepared over the years. Gener- ally, they went as far back as to those which received preliminary design approval, and in some case, those which submitted applica- tions. 4 4 6 3 4130/84 Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Projects "in process" were considered to be either submission of an application for formal review or submission in completion of preliminary review by the ARB. Either stage was intended to be the cut-off point for proj- ects being allowed to continue through the process and be exempted from ,moratoria. If a project was exempted from a moratorium, it did not in any way indicate future City approval. The City's prerogatives regarding modification and denial of a project remained in full force. Ms. Lee said that since a lot of Mr. Hohbach's letter to the Coun- cil, dated April 26, 1984, attempted to establish a form of reli- ance on the City's processes, it was important for the Council to be clear, if it exempted the project, that the applicant was in no way to rely on that exemption as a basis for attempting to estab- lish entitlement to any future approvals. Mayor Klein asked about the most recent moratoria, and the Coun- cil's standards for grandfatherina. Mr. Schreiber said Council adopted a moratorium for development east of Bayshore Frontage Road, which allowed all applications for APB review filed before a date identified in the ordinance, which was basically the date staff was given the assignment to return with changes in the zoning and Comprehensive Plan, to continue through the process. Two projects went through the process --one was approved by the ARB, and one required site and design_ review and was approved by the. City Council. The Downtown Parking Or•di- nMnce was adopted in January, and it allowed projects which received design approval by the ARB or a preliminary ARB review to proceed. Three projects received preliminary ARB review, the two most notable of which were Cowper Square Hotel, 520 Cowper Street; and an office building at 557 Hamilton Avenue. The California Avenue moratorium allowed projects which received design approval to proceed. When the Maxirnart moratorium was enacted, there was a project under active review --an application was filed, but was not yet considered by the ARB--and that project was allowed to proceed through the City system. It was a small development at Ash and Lambert, and it did not stand out in the process because it was a small site. Mayor Klein asked Mr. Schreiber to comment about whether the Hohbach project would be exempted under those standards. Mir. Schreiber said that under each of the four moratoria he cited, an application at the point of the Hohbach application would be exempted from the moratorium and allowed to continue through the City process. Mayor Klein said he understood that under the standards used for the Downtown Parking Study and California Avenue the project required design approval. Mr. Schreiber said that for the Downtown Study, staff dealt with applications which had only a preliminary review. Under' the City's ordinance,- preliminary review was only a review, and the critical point was that the applications were "in process." It was an oddball situation because of the ARB action and referral to the planning Commission and Council, but he believed under the various moratoria, the project would have been exempted, and Coun- cil would have allowed it.to proceed through to a decision -point. Mayor Klein understood that design approval was required under the California Avenue moratorium. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct, but he did- hot be1 #eve there were any —projects in that case at the point_ of the Hohbach appli- cation. - cation. In Ma.xinart, Downtown and East Bayshore, there were proj- ects in process. 4,10, 1 Councilmember Renzel said historically the Council began its mor- atorium at various stages, and she asked whether the Council had authority to put an absolute moratorium on all properties under study. Ms. Lee said yes --it was a legislative preroga ive--but, given the treatment of other areas, she suggested thet if Council chose not to apply the ordinance in the same way, that reasonings be put on the record to support that choice. Councilmember Woolley said Section 4, line 3, of the ordinance presented, spoke to reducing the intensity of potential develop- ments. She did not know whether that would be the case, and believed they were talking about reducing the intensity of poten- tial commercial development. If the City went to housing, the intensity might be more. Nir. Schreiber said intensity could be the actual use of the prop- erty, amount of off -site impacts, and nature_ of traffic. He believed Council was concerned about the intensity of development. Staff might return with different ways to allow different levels of intensity, but the concern was the intensity of development --- particularly traffic. Councilmember Renzel said with respect to 3101 Park Boulevard, if Council included it for purposes of the additional Capacity within the current zone, she asked if staff had a sample ordinance to distinguish the part already approved from that which was poten- tial. Ms. Lee said she would read a statement into the record when the motion was made to make the distinction. Anne Ercolani , 2040 Ash, supported the moratorium, and urged Coun- cil approval. Regarding the grandfather cut-off, the California Avenue moratoriums had extensive discussion as tz, when the cut-off should be, and at that time, it was determined to be ARB design approval. Mr. Schreiber had said that on Maximart, the project allowed to go through was small, and that was not the case for 216 Page Mill Road. She .believed 3101 Park Boulevard should be in- cluded at least for the expansion, and to do anything less and grandfather in any of the projects at less than design approval stage would preclude any options Council might want to have for the properties under study. Harold C. Hohbach, 260 Sheridan Avenue, was a resident of the area since 1957 and had his offices in the area since 1971. The proj- ect started several years ago. His architect made studies, and there was a sewer easement and 24 foot/10 foot setbacks on the property. Because of the setback requirement, he wanted to move the building as far• back from the Expressway as possible and off of the sewer easement. He applied for a change in the variances and fatted no reason for the variances on -the property. They were for 24 feet on Park and 10 feet on Page Mill which were changed to hire and nine so the building could be set back from the Express- way. There was a public hearing last summer; no one showed up at the hearing, and .he was granted the variance. He then asked his architect to pursue the project expeditiously and consult with City officials. The site was planned as the offices for the firm. of which he was partner, and he borrowed most of his money to buy the land and was paying 13.5 percent interest on the money. The current tenant was moving on May 1 --the date his firm originally planned to start construction. The moratorium would impose a per- sonal hardship -on- him and the other 1i_mited partners in the proj- ect, and he requested they be exempted from the moratorium because - it was not a large project. It was a heavily used existing site, and he did .not believe the office building would add muoh to the total traffic impact in the araa, ,4 4 6 5- , 4/30/84 Douglas Hohbach, 204 Sheridan, said he was the only person who lived in the neighborhood, and his neighbors were basically a cement plant and the existing office building in the area. The present use of the site at 216 Page Mill Road was unattractive, there were junk cars constantly in front, and an office building would be a major improvement and probably the best use of the site. He was familiar with the traffic issues because the cars backed up in front of his house. The problem was not that bad because it only happened for about ten to fifteen minutes and did not necessarily occur each day. Jeffrey Widman, 84 W. Santa Clara Street, the attorney for Harold Hohbach, said Palo Alto had some experience with moratoria, and he gathered from staff that the weight of precedent was in favor of granting exemptions for pending applications at the time a mora- torium was placed on the area. He walked the area before attend- ing the Council meeting, and noticed a large rectangle which represented about 50 percent of the area if one took out the streets. It was the Hewlett Packard facility; and most of the other parcels were small, few were vacant, most were development., some were in good condition, and some were bad. He asked the pur- pose for imposing a moratorium in one particular area. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, urged Council to enact the moratorium and in- clude the entire area without exception and to extend the morator- ium on new developments at least to the GM site at 3101 Park Boulevard. Regarding previous -moratoria, there were other mora- toria in the City in the 1970s, and in those instances, projects which had not received a building permit were included in the par- ticular moratorium. It appeared that the'moratorium conditions depended on the temper of the Council rather than narrow legal issues, and as pointed out by the City Attorney, Council could include any project in the moratorium even those which received ARB approval. The property at 216 Park should be included because it was unique and the only project of which he was aware where the ARB rejected the project dnd referred it to the Planning Commis- sion because of a dissatisfaction with the design and planning is- sues. It was significantly important that the Planning Commission and City Council look at it, and the discussion at the ARB meeting was whether the -project should go directly to the City Council or Planning Commission first. He attended both ARB meetings and clearly understood the ARB wanted major modifications to the proj- ect and was not happy with a number of aspects. When it returned on April 19, the changes were trivial and cosmetic and the disap- pointment of the ARB was apparent. He believed it was appropriate foam the property to be included in the moratorium, and for the City Council and Planning Commission to study it along with the other GM parcels. Jeff Hook, 302 College, supported extending the moratorium and making it as comprehensive as possible. He believed -that any in- tensification of use in Palo Alto would bring more costs than benefits to the residents. He urged that 216 Page Mill Road and 3101 Park Boulevard be included to take into account possible future expansion. Gordon McAdam, Hoover Associates, 27 Encino Avenue, said it took longer to process projects than previously because projects were more closely scrutinized. He started the process last summer and recognizing the difficult site, did homework before approaching the ARB.--spoke with various staff members, different departments in the City and because of the proximity to the Oregon Expressway, included consultation with the County officials --particularly the arborists. They prepared models and reviewed the drainage, grad- ing, and tree replacement problems that would be faced by develop- ment of the site, and received concurrence of those respected staff at the City and County level. City staff recommended they take advantage of the new process of the ARS whereby they split their approach and discuss preliminarily the site development before getting into the details of the -'building superstructure. 4 4 6 6 4/30/84. That was done, and the minutes reflected a good exchange of ideas, and he came away with a consensus that it was correct to proceed with the method they chose which involved some grading and the removal of the eucalyptus trees which was agreed to by the arbor- ists and engineers to be replaced by more specimen _size redwoods. The Parks Department recommended fall color using liquid ambers and subsequently the ARB wanted some infill trees. The ARB had a -number of problems with the design and his client was undertaking a complete redesign to incorporate the feedback received from each individual member, at which time the moratorium suggestion arose. Mr. Hohbach worked diligently on the project end was. willing to do what was necessary to accommodate staff at all levels. Florence LaRiviere, 453 Tennessee Lane, urged the Council to deny the request for grandfathering of construction at 216 Park. Last week residents lost a plea for re-examination of a development at 3101 Park Boulevard, and at that time some regret was expressed by the Council that the parcel was not included in the Maximart mora- torium before. The basis for turning down 3101 Park was mainly because plans had progressed through the ARB approval and "fair was fair." Mow it seemed fair to allow staff to make its study of the area before the commencement of further office construction. She asked what good the report was if the problems were irreversi- ble by the time it was completed. The Council sat at a time of crisis, with the jobs/housing imbalance worsening, and she be- lieved they could work together to realize the fine ideals of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Woolley believed one concern was for housing rather than jobs, but the site did not lend itse lf to housing. She asked what other type of zoning might be appropriate. Mr. Schreiber did not want to speculate on potential zoning which was the purpose of the referral to the Planning Commission. It was a difficult site for housing, but that could be worked nut in the study. Councilmember Woolley asked what choices for zoning the Planning Commission rni ght • have other than GM. Mr. Schreiber said with some of the other studies, new or modified zones were created, and that might be a possibility. Councilmember Woolley asked for an estimate of the amount of traf- fic that 20,000 square feet of office would generate as opposed to the present use of the property. Mr. Schreiber would transmit that information since he did not have it with him. Councilmember Renzei said she long favored moratoria during plan- ning processes and believed the area was fairly closed, Council recognized that traffic was close to reaching a severely congested state in the area, and more specifically, the entrance to the Page Mill underpass. MOTION: Councilmember Re+ael moved, seconded by Fletcher, ap- proval of the moratorium ordinance with addition to Section land new map to be attached to ordinance as stated by City Attorney and enteri into record. OR INANCE 3526 entitled °ORDINNANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE TO IMPOSING A MORATORIUM • FOR SIX MOUTHS ON THE PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS iOR CONSTRUCTING NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE GM AREA ALONG PARK BOULEVARD AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY', 4 4 6 7 4/30/84 City Attorney Diane Lee said the end of Section 1 of the ordinance would go on to read..."provided that any project which received design approval pursuant to Chapter 16.48 on or before April 23, 1984, shall be allowed to complete the project as approved." A new map would also be affixed to the ordinance to show 3101 Park as part of the crosshatched area. Councilmember Renzel believed in order to study the area as a unit, it made sense to not accept any projects until appropriate zoning, zoning criterion, and land use for the area were decided. Councilmember Witherspoon asked at what density thQ City allowed housing in the GM zone. Mr. Schreiber did .not know the exact density, but said it was a reasonably high multiple family. Councilmember Witherspoon understood that the high multiple family density was a development option currently available to GM prop- erty owners. When the moratorium was placed on the Maximart site, staff was directed to expedite to the extent possible, a study of the GM zone which would hopefully return the beginning of the summer. Mr. Schreiber said the GM zone allowed residential at approxi- mately 23 or 24 units to the acre. The Maximart study was scheduled for the May 30, 1984 Planning Commission meeting, and staff hoped the GM study would be before the Commission on the same agenda. If action was taken on May 30, it would return to Council in early July. Councilmember Witherspoon did not support the motion, and saw no emergency since two studies would return soon. Everyone wanted to reduce density and job potential, but the area was depressed and ripe for redevelopment, and she understood the City wanted to direct redevelopment towards the goals in the Comprehensive Plan. She suspected the recommendations would be before the Council within the next two to three months, and ttere was no reason to declare another moratorium on the area. She was open-minded in terms of zoning, and hoped for a creative solution. She wanted the area redeveloped creatively, and that did not preclude an office building as the best use of the difficult triangle area on Page Mill and Park Boulevard. She would not support a morator- ium. Councilmember Cobb said the choices__were either an. office building or housing, and Councilmember Witherspoon suggested that housing could be built. He agreed except the economics of today's real estate market appeared to drop everything in the direction of of- fice buildings. Council should be open to zoning to preserve the service industries because he was concerned Palo Alto might become a town of office buildings and condominiums. Office building uses were -intense, some housing uses .created traffic problems, and he was concerned by both. The service industries were less intense uses, but in all zones where housing was not allowed, market prices forced everything towards office buildings Council action was needed because too much was happ:_.ning too fast with too many irreversible c-onsequences.. He was concerned that Council placed many moratoria and.tried to deal with things consistently, but he wondered whether it should be a broad , brush, City-wide approach, to deal with the matter out front, and be done. Councilmember Bechtel asked if --the moratorium could be lifted on the. particular psrcel a'nd continue op for the remainder if the Planning Commission decided the zoning was appropriate. Ms. Lee said the moratorium ordinance could be amended at any time. /10,84 Councilmember Bechtel believed Council should enact the moratorium for all the parcels, The majority of the Council exempted 3101 Park Boulevard because it already received total ARB approval, and the three parcels in the California Avenue area were exempted because they received ARB approval and were in the process of applying for building permits. The parcel at 216 Page Mill had considerable discussion and concern expressed by the ARB not only about design, but traffic patterns. If the Planning Commission concluded it to be the most appropriate zoning designation for the parcel, the moratorium could be lifted for the particular parcel. She supported the motion. Ms. Lee clarified that staff would need specific instruction in the form of a motion, but it should he after Council acted on the ordinance. Mayor Klein said if the motion passed as presented, the Planning Commission would not process the application for 216 Page Mill Road. Ms. Lee said that was correct. The moratorium stopped everything in its tracks. She understood Councilmember Bechtel spoke to the study, and whether the moratorium could be lifted on the parcel if the results of the study indicated the ctrrrent zoning was proper. Councilmember Sutorius asked why there was a six month moratorium schedule if the Planning Commission did the GM review on May 30. Ms. Lee said a six month schedule was fairly standard, but could be changed if Council desired. Councilmember Sutorius asked if the moratorium could be lifted if the Commission concluded its work, made recommendations, and the Council acted. Ms. Lee said six months was an outside date, and if the recom- mendations returned sooner, staffa would provide an ordinance to repeal the moratorium effective the date any new regulations became effective. Councilmember Sutorius said in the ARB process the architect identified a two -track process and said site planning was under- taken in the fall and then later there was a more specific design review. He asked when the ARB first saw the application. Linda Ludden, Architectural Review Board member, said the ARB first saw the building design after December. It saw the site Planning as a preliminary review, and two separate site plan con- cepts were presented. At that meetinn, two members of -the ARB were not present, and those in attendance commented on the site planning and cautioned the applicant that because two of the mem.-= bers were absent, there might be differing opinions when the full proposal was returned. Councilmember Sutorius had no objection to the inclusion of 3101 Park Boulevard if a` moratorium proceeded because the applicant indicated from the first time the subject arose in the ARB process thate he did not envision additional building on the site. When the subject arose at the Council meeting, the applicant indicated in the event of such an occurrence, he would participate in any appropriate housing, mitigation. He asked if the motion' responded to the City Attorney's request for''c,ertain types of findings be i ncl tided. Ms. Lee said no findings were required because Council action was legislative. She suggested it was prudent for Council to record its legislative reasonings for the action, but reiterated that findings were not required for the particular action. 4 4 6 9 4/30/84 Vice Mayor levy reluctantly supported moratoria because if Council went on record that an area should be carefully reviewed and pos- sibly rezoned, he believed property owners should be precluded from rushing in under some deadline with hastily conceived plans designed to take advantage of quickly expiring zoning. With each moratorium, Council was sensitive to those property owners who actually moved forward in good faith, which'was why Council seemed to approve exceptions to moratorium when they underwent prelimi- nary ARB review, and in those cases where Council went further, it was because there were no projects at an earlier stage under pre- liminary ARB review. In the proposed case, he agreed with Coun- cilmenher Renzel regarding the treatment of 3101 Park because the developers clearly designed something to a specific size, and would be happy to be held to that size. On 216 Page Mill Road, the developers did a lot of work, and even though it met with dis- approval from the ARB, they substantially moved ahead in reliance on operative zoning. He questioned whether rezoning of the one parcel would result in a major change of use from GM, and- was inclined to allow an exception for the specific property, which was consistent with his feelings on previous moratoria. He believed Council should look for the earliest practical expiration of the moratorium rather than the longest, and should be concerned with the convenience of the public and not merely with the con- venience of City Hall. He asked what the earliest practical date would be for expiration of the moratorium, i Schreiber said at the earliest, final action could occur in four months, but he recommended the longer time period. Four months was based on the Commission's taking action on May 30, being returned to the Council in July, Council adopting o first and second reading in -duly, and the ordinance effective date the end of August. Given the complexity of the area, it was doubtful all those things would occur the first time around, and it was not inconceivable that the Planning Commission would take a second look at the project. The Planning staff was comfortable with six months, and would be uncomftrtable with anything less than five months. Vice Mayor Levy asked if the five or six months would still be required if Council moved ahead with all due speed. Mr. Schreiber said if the matter moved as fast as imagined, it would take four months, The likelihood of five months was great, and six months was easy to project. Vice Mayor Levy asked regarding exempting sites with preliminary ARB review, if any other sites in the moratorium area had prelimi- nary ARB review. Mr. Schreiber said not to his knowledge. Vice Mayor Levy believed it was appropriate to hold to past stan- dards. He did not know what went before the ARB in terms cif which specific parcel applied for preliminary ARB review, and did not know whether he approved the project submitted. If a property owner went through the work necessary to -go to ARB with prelimi- nary review, they should be exempted from a moratorium. AMENDMENT; Vice Mayor Levy moved, .seconded by Klein, to amend Section 1, second line f by adding after the third word *applica- tions,* "received after A ril 23 4." Mayor Klein asked if the amendment would affect the language pro- posed at the end of the section. -Ms. Lee said no. CouncilmembE`r' Sutorius supported the amendment. 4 4 7 0 4/30/84 Mayor Klein supported the amendment, It was suggested that Coun- cil should go to the limit of its legal authorit;, to make retro- active changes and enact moratoriums on projects which were pretty far along. He did not believe that was a proper standard because there were many areas where Council did not want to go to the ab- solute limit. Council must exercise its own sense of fairness in situations, and the report from Mr. Schreiber indicated that Coun- cil was fairly consistent in terms of when a project should no longer be subject to a moratorium, and he believed the subject project passed that point. The fact that it was not approved and there were negative comments from the ARB went not to the question of the moratorium, but to the project's merit and worth. By exempting the project from the moratorium, Council in no way passed on its merits, and by the time the project was before the Council, it would have input from the Planning Commission on the general problems in the GM zone. The applicant was entitled to move forward with processing the application and he urged Council support of the amendment. Councilmember Renzel believed in fairness and said there were lots of parties to the fairness issue. Council must be fair to the hundreds of people who passed that intersection everyday; those who lived in the neighborhood; and the people who lived in Palo Alto and cared what the town looked like in 20 years. Taking a few months to carefully plan for the community was appropriate, and if Council was not careful about being fair, it would see Tots of preliminary review at ARB and many phantom projects beat:tg various clocks. in terms of the City's planning processes. She urged that Council vote against the amendment and support the main motion. Councilmember Fletcher said the entire discussion revolved around precedents, and Council would create another by saying a project proceeded sufficiently even before it received preliminary ARB approval. If it was done once, the precedent would be set for it to be done again. The four projects exempted from the California Avenue moratorium all received preliminary ARB approval. That was the precedent and where she drew the line. In terms of letting the Planning Commission proceed with the review, Council was lead- ing the developer on to more expense and the longer the process went on, the more the fairness issue would be raised. Now was the time to put the project on hold before any more investments were made. She urged that the parcel be included in the moratorium. Councilmember Woolley asked if the Planning Commission would still review zoning for the property if the amendment passed. Mr. Schreiber said yes because it would still be within the areas of the GM zone study. Councilmember Woolley said it was important to continue to study the area because the project was different from the others exempted because the property was unique such that a better solu- tion might be forthcoming as -a result of the study. ks long as it continued to be a part of the study, she supported the amendment. She cautioned the developer because she agreed that since the ARB requested a total redesign in order for the project to be recon- sidered, it was wise. to not invest more time until the Planning Commission made:. its recommendation regarding land use. Councilmember Bechtel was concerned that exempting the parcel would Send a false message to the Planning Commission oe the ARB that the proposed project was alright. She believed it should be retained in the moratorium to ensure a complete study. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Fletcher, Ret Yel , Bechtel, Cobb voting 'no." 4 4 7 1 4/30/84 MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Witherspoon voting "no." ITEM #7, AMENDMENT TO SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL JOBS BILL/CDBG t,UNI KAC I AIMING Executive Assistant Glenn Miller said the budget ordinance in Section 1 and 2 referred to the name "Senior Employment Services" and the correct title was "Service Employment Service." MOTION: Councilm,ember Renzel roved, seconded by Cobb, approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Senior Coordinating Council Jobs Bill/ CDB6 Contract and the budget amendment ordinance, as corrected, allocating $11,000 to the Senior Employment Service. AMENDMENT N0. 1 TO CONTRACT N10. 4344 SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL - SENIOR EMPLOYMENT SERVICE May 1, 1984 - April 30, 1985 ORDINANCE 3527 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE tarrrirrwr="'ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR SENIOR EMPLOYMENT SERVICES THROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS" MOTION PASSED unanimously. COUNCIL RECESSED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION RE LITIGATION FROM 9:35 .m. IrEIEEM MAYOR KLEIN RE R:CONSIDERAI`ION OF ITEM #5,. PLANNING COMMISSION 1317-01--EBEf£1. 1{A1'ThOW ANT- V1 `TL Rt. Mayor Klein said Council received a note from the applicant in Item #5, regarding property at 720 Los Trancos Road, explaining their late arrival due to traffic problems. He requested the right to be heard, which could only occur if someone on the suc- cessful side moved to reconsider the item. MOTION TO RECONSIDER Mayor Klein moved; seconded by Levy, to reconsider Item 15, Planning Commission recommendation re applica- tion of Ebert, Hannum and Voltz re property at 720 Los Trancos Road. MOTION PASSED unanimously. Richard Hannum, Ebert, Hannum and Voltz, Architects; One Sutter Street, San Francisco, California, represented Mr. Hewlett regard- ing the addition of barbed wire to an existing fence, Staff ques- tioned the value of barbed wire as security for the individuals living in the residence, and suggested the reason for disallowing barbed wire in the open space district was to protect migrating animals. Regarding security for those who i ivied within the open space district in Palo Alto and the security'provided by the City,: the Hewletts lived in the City of Palo Alto for thirty pleas years, and now elected to move into the open space district. During the planning process, it was pointed- out that historically those in- dividuals who chose to live in the open space: district dial so ate their own risk, and he was not sure that was 'the intent of the ordinance. The question of barbed wire as a security element and whether it deterred those individuals who might jump a fence was ans wed by the Planning Commission when it approved the use of - barbed wire do the APriaga .property to limit human access to the site. The proposed fence was about 200 feet and operated along a ridge . l ire between the Palo Alto park area, the view park, and the residents. .They took special pains to ensure the fence was-at- tractivesaesthetically from the view park, which was acknowledged - by the Planning Commission. People from the view and .casual 4 4 7 2 4/30/84. hikers still hiked over the top of the existing fence regardless of posted notices of private property, which showed that barbed wire as a deterrent as established by the Palo Alto Police Depart- ment was valid. It was pointed out that the Arriaga fence was ten feet high and intended to restrict access of animals to the arbor- etum and the barbed wire was to prevent people from passing. A deer died of a broken neck against the 10 foot fence at. the Arriaga site. He believed Council should review the reasons behind the unwritten rule of .no barbed wire because it did not specifically appear in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and suggested another look at whether barbed wire posed a specific problem to deer in the area because it clearly deterred people from passing over fences. Mr. Hewlett and others would probably accede to documented information that a six foot barbed wire fence caused significant problems or harm to the population of deer in the area as opposed to the security consequences, but staff and Council did not have enough information to make that decision yet. While he agreed with the ARB bout the desirability to reduce impediment to the passage of animals, there were considerations in terns of the human population to be addressed. The argument of barbed wire night not necessarily establish a precedent, but consideration should be given to further study. The City created a situation whereby no barbed wire may be used according to the ARB and staff in any open space district, and he believed it was a question of the security concerns of those individuals who paid taxes and lived in the area. Councilmember Witherspoon said she sympathized somewhat with the situation and suggested the Hewletts consider "natural" barbed wire. A "mermaid" rose bush grew to approximately six feet by six feet tall and naturalized itself in a year or two, and she believed it would be a deterrent to deer arid humans if staff had no problem. Mr. Hannom believed the material was unacceptable when the project was reviewed for landscaping since it was part of the view cor- ridor from the Palo Alto site and was to be kept as free as pos- sible from additional planting. They were asked to put up a series of eight to ten oak trees which was the limitation of planting. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, to up- hold the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the applica- tion of the firM of Ebert, Hannuar and Voltz for barbed wire at 720 Los Trancos Road. Vice Mayor levy said he sympathized with the need for people in all parts of town to be secure, but was unconvinced that barbed wire on top of a fence would provide the security, He would up- hold the staff recommendations and City's policies in terms of barbed wire in the foothills area. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Witherspoon voting "no,'' ITEM #8, SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT'S PALO ALTO FLOOD BASIN ,antinued from 2127 84) (P4 K 5 W 1 � • City Manager Bill Zaner said staff met with the City's consultant, Linsley, Kraeger Associates Ltd., and Santa Clara Valley Water District (S.CVWD) on Friday in an attempt to find middle ground be- tween the two reports The consultant's conclusions differed from those of the SCVWD, and staff concluded that while the two reports did not agree, froth concurred that work was needed. The question was what work and to what extent, and the difficulty was deter- mining the extent of work and -how ..much should be done when. It was probably too late for any project that year, and the -best hope was to authorize a project for next year. In order to do so, Council would need to make a decision in terms of the extent of work by December 3 , : 1984. He suggested th it Council hear from the consultant and the SCVWD, and pro's°ide guidance and instructions to work with SCVWD and the consultant over the coming months for a position both organizat;opus could support. Staff intended to do that prior to December 31 , 1984 so Council could make a decision on a project to move ahead the next construction year. Vice Mayor Levy asked if City work, other than the flood basin, would be delayed by the process. Mr. Lamer said no. Ray Linsley, Consultant, Linsley, Kraeger Associates, Ltd., Aptos, said his firm was asked to identify the level of water in the flood basin with a one percent probability of occurring in any year. Normally, one percent flood was a flood peak, and its prob- ability could be defined with reasonable accuracy. Value was measured by appropriate design in terms of the design.,__nf a channel because if the flow exceeded the level , . it flowed over the banks and caused flooding. The problem invclved.water volume, and the ability to store enough water in the flood basin between times of high tide and discharge it when the tide was low enough to flow out of the flood basin. The correlation between flood volume and flood peak was poor, and the 100 year volume combined with the 100 year peak, was much bigger than needed, and the probability of both occurring was larger than one percent. The study Ancluded the correlation of flood peak and tide which needed special atten- tion. It was concluded the only reliable way of getting the answer requested was to simulate the entire system starting with rainfall, calculating the resultant stream flows, and routing those flows through the flood basin with a tide outside the tide gates. If that were done continuously for a period of time, the maximum elevation in the flood basin each year and the maximum eievattons could be analyzed to determine the one percent level. Another important feature of conditional probability problems was records from as far back as possible. In 1910, someone in Palo Alto established a recording_ rain gauge, which was unusual in those days, and it operated in Palo Alto from 1910 to 1915, and provided -a 65 year record from which to work. That combined with. Mountain View's records from 1975 to 1983 and records from Dahl ranch to provide an indication of rainfall in the higher eleva- tions of the basin were used in a technique called 'hydrologic simulation." The first model was developed at Stanford between 1960-66, to calculate stream flows at the entrance to the flood basin for the past 73 years, and it successfully calculated the amount of water that went into the ground as infiltration, the amount stored in the soil, the amount which perculated to the ground water and entered the stream, and described the entire hydrologic process from rainfall to runoff in the stream channel.. It was widely used and more than 50 of the models used by federal, state; and local private consultants and international users were adapted from the original Stanford model. The model was cali- brated against observed stream flow. Matadero Creek was recorded from 1953 to present, and the consultant chose. the four most recent years, which included two sizable flood years, a very dry year, and a normal year. The parameters of the model_were adjust- ed until the simulated flows produced by the model agreed with the observed stream flow. The simulated volumes for the four year period were -off by about 5..5 percent, but random errors did not seem to cause problems, and over a long: Period' of'`simulation tended to cancel. One could expect a perfectly reliable flood frequency curve despite day to day variations in the simulated flows._ After calibrating the model on the -four most recent years, --the entire stream flow record beginning. in 1953 was simulated. Matadero Creek.- underwent much development since 1953, and the records until about 1969 showed observed flows much lower than the simulated flours, which was expected since -urbanized areas produced more runoff. Since -1969, the -.agreement between observed and simu.- 1 aged was relatively good, and over the 13 year period., simulated volumes erred by • seven percent i n terms of the observed Maximum one . day volumes' in -each year period. The overall; err. -for the 1,108$ peak flow .cur°ve was about two per'i;eot. The model generated 73 years of stream flow on Matadero, Barron: and Adobe Creeks at Bayshore, and the sum of those provided the total inflow into the flood basin. A peak inflow, or 100 year inflow, to the flood basin calculated from the total flow was about 5400 cfs. Those flows were routed through the flood basin, and every hour the in- flow into the basin, the outflow through the tide gates calculated how much water was left in the basin. As it built up, the maximum was achieved, and low tide came a'ong and the gates began to dis- charge at a high level drops, which meant 73 values of the annual highest levels and those .were .used to plod a frequency curve. The highest flood level calculated was a 2.9 toot elevation and that occurred with the conditions of the January, 1911 flood. A fur- ther indication of the value of the approach was without the rain- fall record in Palo Alto and the technique, there would be no estimate of the floods!. Curiously, the flood had the tenth high- est peak in the 73 years and was the second from top in terms of volume. The shape of the hydrograph was such that it produced maximum elevation 2.9 feet. Extending that by a frequency plot, the consultant's estimated a 100 year, one percent, level in the tide basin at 3.1 feet. Freeboard was necessary to allow for con- tingencies such as wind and waves or other things that might cause water to escape the basin. The consultant suggested an additional one-half foot to allow for the uncertainty of the simulation anal- ysis and another one-half foot to allow for the wind, setup and waves, or maximum elevation of the surrounding levees at about 4.1 feet, which would be adequate to guarantee Palo Alto would not be flooded by flow across Bayshore from the tide basin with a probab- ility of more than one percent. Councilmember Cobb asked why the consultant's results differed from those of the SCVWD. Mr. Linsley said it was a problem of the conditional probabili- ties. The SCVWD combined the 100 year volume with the 100 year peak and when those two occurred together, it was more than a 100 year flood. He clarified that the estimates of the SCVWD would provide protection far beyond the one percent level. Councilmember Cobb understood that the 100 -year volume and 10€3 - year peak had a less than one percent probability of occurring at the same. time. Mr. Linsley said that was correct. Councilmember Cobb asked if the difference between peak and volume was the largest part of the difference. Mr. Linsley said yes. The consultants used a totally different method than that of the SCVWD- so there were procedural differ- ences, and the consultant did not explore the SCVWD's procedures in detail with respect to the computation. Generally, the problem of conditional probabilities were common factors in causing an overestimate of that necessary to control -floods. Vice Mayor Levy asked if the consultant could determine the SCVWD likely conclusion of.the 100 year level and attempt to rectify the probability of the 100 year -volume combined with the 100 year peak, if the data were assembled and combs'led by the SCVWD. Mr. Linsley said there were techniques to provide probabilities. The consultant would have to carefully study the correlation between peak and volume, but it was known that using some simu- lated dataa the correlation was on the order of .5,. which was statistically pretty lbw. Vice= Mayor Levy said if the correlation was zero, it would occur once in .10,000,years, and he asked how,often it would occur if the correlation was .5. 4 4 7.5 4/30/84 Mr. Linsley said that was not worked out by the consultant, but he said it would be somewhere around 300 or 400 years. Vice Mayor Levy asked for clarification that the consultant be- lieved the figures presented by the SCVWD was a 400 year figure rather than a 100 year figure. Mr. Linsley said something like that. Vice Mayor Levy asked if Mr. Linsley could guess where the 100 figure would fall from the data of the SCVWD. Mr. Linsley said the SCVWD would have to combine a flood peak and volume independently whose return periods were less than 100 years. Councilmember Renzel asked regarding the correlation between the simulated flows on Matadero Creek and the actual flow for the four years calibrated, if simulated flows were run for earlier years for which the City had measured flows on Matadero. Mr. Linsley said they were done for the period of 1959 to 1983. Prior to 1969, the agreement was relatively poor because runoff volumes simulated were much higher. The 1955 flood was observed at about 800 cfs, and it was estimated at about 1600 cfs if it occurred under present conditions. Councilmember Renzel asked for clarification that if the earlier years were overestimated because of the way the model was cali- brated, the result would be too high rather than low in the final analysis of levels in the flood basin. Mr. Linsley said they tried to be conservative and not underesti- mate. It was expected that in the early years before the land was developed the simulated flows would be higher. They did not attempt to calibrate the conditions from 1953 to 1960, since they were interested in reproducing flows under the existing conditions in the catchment and with the channels improved to accommodate the 100 year flood. Councilmember Renzel asked if the consultant expected the end result to be too low since the simulation tended to be high prior to 1955. Mr. Linsley said the consultant believed the end result was good, and the error was relatively small. Councilmember Renzel said the report made a strong assumption that there would be no significant increased development within the 'catchment area, and she asked what was considered significant development. Mr. Linsley said the Planning Departments in all jurisdictions basically expected existing holes to be filled, but no large development beyond the present level. A development like the --one in Los Altos Hills with widely spaced houses and large surrounding land .areas would be expected in limited areas along Adobe Creek, but that did not produce the high runoff an industrial park type development did along Page Mill Road. Councilmember Cobb said the SCVW.O suggested that because some 60 plus percent of the industry used the, methodology it employed, and: about one percent used that employed by the consultant. Theirs, was ---a better method. The consultant suggested that its was fairly widespread, and he asked for comment. Mr. Linsley ;said the simulation method was developed in the early 1960s and like.. everything else, technology transfer and engineer- ing was slow-, but there were riajor users, For example,- the Environment Protection, Agency. (EPA) funded the preparation of a 4 4 7 6 4/30/84 version for its use which it made available to any user. The National Weather Service used similar models on flood forecast in, formation, and the U. S. Geological Survey made frequent use of such models. There were a variety of models similar to the Stanford model and they were: all part of the family, The SCVWD figure for one percent came from a study made by the Water Resources Council when attempting to decide how to run a test on hydrologic methods, and their inquiries focused on other methods. The results of that test could be provided on request. Councilmember Sutorius said with respect to page 35 of the report and figure 12, flood peak frequency for the three creeks, he was curious about the characteristics with a return period between ap- proximately two years and 30 years where Adobe Creek peak frequen- 'y exceeded Matadero Creek a.nd then crossed as they went out, and he asked what created those situations. Mr. Linsley said it . -was the result of the• method of fitting a dis- tribution.- In drawing the curves, the consultant fit the distri- bution adopted by the Water Resources Council for all federal agencies called the "log -Pearson III distribution." He did not believe that should be•used in California nor that the federal government could legislate statistical characteristics- of streams. A method was recommended by the Water Resources Council which started with a regional coefficient weighted together with one computed from the basin. It was not a fixed number. Counciimember Sutorius said figure 13 was an extremely straight line, and he asked if it went out like that beyond the r=ealm of the •chart. . Mr. Linsley said that line was fitted by a distribution known as "extreme value distribution" which was probably more appropriate for California, and plotted data indicated tit extended out as a straight-line. Councilmember Sutorius believed a 4.1 elevation would fit at about 340 years in terms of its frequency. He hoped the SCVWD would respond to those types of questions, and his questions were intended as clarification of his own understanding. With regard to the cfs values for the 100 year in each location as summarized An the Executive Summary, Matadero Creek was 2282 cfs, and the SCVWD used 2900 as the district design flow. He asked if some of the difference between 2282 and 2900 carne about for similar reasons to where the consultant added one-half foot error resolu- tion potential because the one-half foot was not referenced in the document. Mr. Linsiey said one foot of freeboard could be divided into one- half foot for uncertainty in the method, and .one-half foot for waves, but the SCVWO would have--to-be---acr<ad whpther_they added any freeboard allowance to that number. Councilmember Renzel said a similar model -was used by NOW for flood .forecasting,` and she assumed it Was used more . in the eastern' states for flash flood- type circumstances. She asked about _the reliability experience of the model to forecast flood stages of r 1 vers o Mr. Linsley said California rused the "Sacramento" model which was similar in principle to the Stanford model, and was sure that reliability in terms of forecast accuracy was an important item. Councilmember Witherspoon said Section IV of the Executive Sum- mary noted that channels of the creeks and all bridges and cul- verts crossing them would be improved to accommodate .the 100 .year flood without flooding adjacent property. She assumed that meant if they were }rot improved, local flooding would occur upstream, but the flood basin would not achieve that level because the water overflowed upstream, 4 4 7 1 4/30/84 Mr. Linsley said that was correct. John O'Halloran, Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, said in its letter of April 23, 1984, on file in the City Clerk's office, the SCVWD explained its position. If Council did not use the SCVWD's hydrology, he re- quested 60 days to look at Mr. Linsley's hydrology and talk with other engineers. The SCVWD was surprised and disappointed because it believed Council . direction was clearly to look at the SCVWD's hydrology and decide whether it had errors or misconceptions. He understood the difference between the conclusions of the SCVWD and Mr. Linsley was about 2.5 feet. He realized a major consideration of the Council was environmental, and as mentioned at the last meeting, the SCVWD project only took about a minus four -tenths of an acre of wetl,and.,, and steps could be taken to eliminate that. Environmental concerns must be balanced between the damages to houses and possible loss of life in the north 8ayshore area and it was reasonable to consider that the SCVWD should go with that basis. The Palo Alto' Flood Basin had a total of 600 acres, and an additional 300 acres of wetlands in the ITT property, so he did nui believe .4 of tir acre was a major consideration. The SCVWD needed time to talk with its board and other people. It had about 125 water sheds in the county and about 750 miles of flood control channels, and should not jump from one standard to another espe- cially when it believed its method was the most commonly used by many federal agencies and by most flood control agencies. The SCVWD engineers and a review of its hydrology by experts over the years showed the hydrology to be correct, and the SCVWD was the responsible agency for flood control, which could not be trans- ferred. When his eng it ecrs said the people north of Bayshore would be flooded, he told the board of its liability if it pro- ceeded with upstream work on that basis before meeting the down- stream flood control basin requirements. He hoped the Council accepted the SCVWD methodology. Councilmember Cobb asked SCVWD staff how it perceived the differ- ence between the two results and how it occurred. Stan Wolfe, Manager, Project Development Branch of the SCVWD, said the consultant used the Stanford Water Shed Model, and the SCVWD used the iegionol Flood Frequency approach used by most agencies. The approaches were. the subject of national controversy, and the SCVWD believed the results of its hydrological analysis differed from those of the consultants because of differences An the data input into the model, the model -itself, and compounding probabili- ties. SCVWD believed peak flows` and volumes were almost 100 per- cent related because the volumes produced related to the peaks. produced. To create a case to. show compounded probabilities was unfair in the subject case, but no one reviewed the -SCVWD method- ology for verification. Councilmember Cobb asked if the District believed the probability of the combination of peak- flow and peak volume occurring at the same time was one in 100. Mr. Wolfe said yes. Councilmember Cobb said it was suggested that the nature of the stream data applied by SCVWD was taken from streams irrelevant to the particular area and he asked for comment. Mr. Wolfe said the SCVWD used three different methods to analyze any water shed. A regional flood frequency method looked at stream gauge information from Matadero Creek, San Francisquito Creek and adjoining water sheds around the county and .on the west side of the valley, and regressed those statistically speaking and statistically derived a certain relationship between them in order to statistically project to one percent values. The District related flows frk`* adjoining creeks in order to look at them all together and to 'relate them to the area and mean annual precipitation, 4 4 7 8 4/30/84 Going into a problem like the Palo Alto Flood Basin and applying the formula derived with regional equations, the SCVWD derived a water surface elevation in the pond and looked at the site spe- cific situation of the water shed and did an analysis on the Matadero stream gauge, and those results were compared with other regional results. SCVWD also generated a rainfall runoff rela- tionship. Simulation was the Stanford Water Shed Model and was a noble approach but still developmental and not used by many agen- cies for that reason. _The third method to relate rainfall to run- off was used and that 'result was compared with the other two. In two of the three cases, the SCVWD used site specific information, and in the third case only it used stream flow data from other water sheds. Councilmemher Cobb asked where the water sheds were located. Mr. Wolfe responded the sheds were located in Santa Clara County. Vice Mayor Levy asked for clarification that all available infor- mation was not utilized, but only that information the SCVWD believed reliable, and information that others believed useful was discarded. Mr. Wolfe said when using the term "available," the SCVWD meant available and justifiable data, and it was implied that untested data was not used. Vice Mayor Levy asked what made the data going back to 1910 and the rain gauges untested, unusable or unwise to use. Mr. Wolfe clarified that the 1910 rain gauges were not reviewed by the SCVWD in terms of usability. The state conducted -a repository of information which was published' regularly. The usability of information depended on the person who collected it; the device being used --a coffee can versus an eight inch standard rain gauge --the regularity with which the person collected the data, and the training that person had it collecting the data. Vice Mayor Levy clarified that the SCVWD did not look at the data and reject it, but rather that no one had looked at it satisfac- torily enough to be accepted. Mr. Wolfe believed if it was not. published by the State in its Bulletin 195, it was a good indication that it was reviewed and discarded or someone had it in the file and did not know about it. Vice Mayor Levy understood that SCVWD was concerned about lawsuits if there was a flood, and he asked if SCVWD was confident that if it used its hydrologics, it could withstand any lawsuit. He asked about the concept of a well regarded consultant's data, and whether 'his attorneys believed the consultant's data could with- stand a laws-u_it. Mr. O'Halloran said if the SCVWD had a report which said flooding would occur, regardless of what five other reports said, if flood- ing occurred, _ the SCVWD would be liable. Vice Mayor Levy asked what would happen if a flood occurred in Santa Clara County which exceeded the 100 year event. Mr. O'Halloran said he ;understood that a 100 year flood had never been experienced in recorded history, which went back to about 1900. Vice Mayor. Levy clarified that in 125 water sheds arid 80 years worth of data, there were no floods which exceeded the 100 year figure. Mr. O'Halloran said it would happen. 4 4 D 9 4/30/84 Vice Mayor Levy said 80 years times 125 was about 10,000 years worth of data, and one would expect to exceed the 100 year limit 100 times with that much data. Mr. O'Halloran believed the hypothesis was incorrect. Councilmember Renzel asked whether the three different methods used by the SCVWD to find its results were done by a comparison or whether they were combined in some fashion. Mr. Wolfe said the SCVWD used three methods and had the ability to combine them in a weighted manner according to their standard err of estimate, but whether it was done in each case was judgmental. It was not done when the results were close together. Councilmember Renzel said the SCVWD report on hydrology essen- tially suggested that the principal hydrologic method was to use the regional flood frequency where it generated stream flows in addition to the 28 years of record on Matadero, and based on those flows attributed its proper flows to Barron and Adobe, and routed them on through the system to come up with flood peaks. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Wolfe said that was correct. Councilmember Renzel said at the last meeting, she inquired as to which streams were used for the additional 38 years of record, and was provided with a report frorn the SCVWD with some 23 streams listed, most of which were not in Santa Clara County. The extended hydrological report suggested there might have been streams outside of those 2.3 listed, and she asked which were used to generate the 38 years of additional data in Palo Alto. Mr. Wolfe deferred to SCVWD hydrologist, Abdullah Saah, for response. Mr. Saah said the record stochastica 1y simulated the regional regression equations used in the determination of design flows, one percent flows, two percent flows,, 10 percent flows, etc. on the important rural areas of Matadero Creek. Provided the sta- tions were.awithin the same hydrologic region, stream flow informa- tion could\ be transferred from one location to another stochas- tically with a cross correlation factor between one station and the other. All of the stations used in the regional regression analysis were within the hydrologic region which extended from Monterey to San Francisco. All data from the stations in that area were analyzed and crass correlated to check which station was relevant and which could add information to the statistical para- meters at a certain gauged location in the•area. Councilmember .Renzel said the SCVWD hydrologic report ladicated, not more than 20 streams could be used at one time on the com- puter, so the streams were batched. It was suggested that only 10. streams were used. to generate numbers for Matadero Creek, and she asked which streams were used. Mr. Saah had complete information of the cross correlation and offered to share his information in a pro-rk study session and explain how the SCVWD transferred information from stations with l'ofg records to - stations -w.ith short records. Councilmember Renzel said she had no problem understanding the correlation method, but was curious about which streams were used because only Coyote_ and Arroyo Seco had records longer .than 42 years. Mr. -Saab said Arroyo: Seco was the largest - station- used in -the transformation of information in terms of standard deviations. Councilmember Renzel asked if the estimated -specif-ti:;c . years and flows generated were intended to - be the specific- years. -4 4 8 0 4/30/84. i•1r. Saah said yes, but in terms of the counting process, the value was inconsequential because it intended to improve on the standard deviation as a result of aggregate analysis of the data. Regard- ing whether the values for 1943 and 1945 were overestimated, a comparison with Mr. Linsley's estimates showed comparable figures. Councilmember Renzel said the third approach to establish rainfall runoff was slightly different than the Stanford model used by the City consultants, and she asked which approach was used fee the rainfall runoff, and how it interrelated with the results of the other two methods. Mr. Wolfe said the SCVWD used the unit hydrograph approach which was the same rainfall runoff method used by the Corps. Mayor Klein said that the discussion was too detailed especially when it appeared the item would be continued. Councilmember Renzel said the panel report discussed hydrologic methods and indicated that where flows were affected by urbaniza- tion, in the long term the SCVWD should look for a reliable simu- lation model to test and adopt if satisfactory. She asked if it was done. Mr. Saah said there were two divisions of water sheds in the Dis- trict --the upper water sheds were considered "rural" and applied the stochastic generation of data. The lower water sheds were "urban" and applied the urban hydrology methodology. Councilmember Renzel said the principal method --the regional flood frequency --relied on the correlation to develop data for the one percent analysis. Mr. Wolfe had suggested that the 23 or 28 years of recorded data on Matadero was more reliable than hourly rain- fall monitored for 75 years, and referred to - collecting rain in coffee cans. Palo Alto's rain gauge did not fall into that cate- gory, and she asked whether the method was unreliable for a rain- fall estimate or unreliable to assume a relationship between rain- fall and runoff. Mr. Wolfe said rainfall produced runoff, but he was unaware of Palo Alto's data prior to 1955, when published information stopped. State help was used, and it did not have information published prior to 1955 for the particular gauge. It was diffi- cult to make the mathematical model and ascertain how much water resulted when it rained because of the different variables within a watershed which affected water runoff. Councilmember 'enzel said the model was made and known to be Com- plicated and required detailed data, and asked whether the method was considered unreliahle or untried. Mr. Wolfe said the method was previously tried and he believed it was unreliable. Councilmember Renzel asked for. evidence in support cif its unrelia- bi l ity. Me Wolfe said the statement was based on literature and testimony from people who •tried it. The matter was debated in classrooms and professional journal s. Alameda County and Santa Barbara tried the Stanford water shed model in earlier years, but discarded the results because they were too low, and Cal Trans discounted the method because culverts were being designed for the highway$ on the western watersheds of San Mateo County. He could provide more detailed evidence at a .later meeting. A two year old example of their national standing from the Water Resources Council Bulletin referred to by Mr. Linsley showed the number of people who used each method. The information was gathered by various Federal agencies. 4 4 8 1 4/30/84 Councilmember Renzel asked abut the size of the sample, how many questionnaires were sent out, and how many responses were received. Mr. Wolfe did not have numbers, but said it included Departments of Transportation for every state, and various federal Water Agencies such as- the Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service, EPA, etc., and the private industry. Statistical approaches were listed in the first item --over 65 percent used his method then and now. The empirical equation rationale was out- dated and not used by the SCVWD or the City's consultants, but the texbook approach was still used by 25 percent of the people in the United States. Councilmember Sutorius was curious about the savings of approxi- mately three feet of levee florid wall construction on a project that in the mid -70s, cost about $450,000; in 1983-84 cost approxi- mately $750,000; and in 1985 would cost approximately $800,000- $850,000. He asked if he was correct that the possible methods were a statistical analysis of recorded data process, which was discarded; a statistical analysis of recorded and estimated data; a rainfall data process; and a regional equation process. Mr. Wolfe said the statistical method was not discarded. Councilmember Sutorius said the statistical process produced 1,945 cfs from Matadero creek and the statistical analysis of recorded and estimated data produced 2,176 cfs. He believed Mr. Wolfe described the rainfall data, which produced 2,091 cfs, as being comparable to the simulation process, and the regional equation produced 2,359 cfs. The consultant study pi..oduced 2,282 cfs for Matadero Creek at Bayshore. They were all close and he asked how those numbers were transferred, Mr. Wolfe said Councilmember Sutorius was reading from the table for a station on Matadero Creek at El Carnino, and the concern was Highway 101, which accounted for the differences in numbers. The further"downstream, the higher the flow, Councilmember Sutorius presumed they took the 2,359 cfs number and bumped it up for downstream to produce 2,928 cfs as opposed to the analysis of the City's consultant which provided for 2,282 cfs. Mr. Wolfe said that was correct. Douglas Graham, 984 Il ima Way, wrote a letter to the Council, which was on file in the City Clerk's office, which emphasized the complex manner in which the problem was approached by sthe SCVWD and the consultant. The problem was too complex for an easy reso- lution in a public forum --time was necessary to uncover the cor- rect answers. On behalf of the Barron Park Association, he urged the Council to conclude the question as rapidly as possible An order to fix the creeks. People were continually subject to damage. All West Baysho•e - ryas at risk, and if the necessary work was underestimated, Barron hark, the neighborhoods in between where the creeks should be fixed, and those who might be back - flooded by • an inadequate flood basin were in danger. Bob Mass, 4010 Drme, assumed the Linsley Kraeger Associates report used appropriate methodology and came to realistic conclusions. He agreed that a 4 foot, 6 inch flood wall was necessary for ade- quate margin. Mr. Linsley said that 3.1 feet was adequate, with two -tenths of.a foot for one standard deviation:. of error. Normal- ly, three standard deviations were considered, and further margin allowed for possible gauge error since one year's tidal action Was not representative. He believed 4 feet to 4.5tfeet was conserva- tiveand was concerned about possible impacts. . He was concerned about liability, and whether "the City or the Water District would bear the liability from a flood which might., occur if the flood 4/30,84 wall basin were cut off at 4 feet, when 4,2 feet was necessary. He suggested staff discuss with the consultant, the SCVWD, and the Water District Board a minimum height with which all would be com- fortable with minimal freeboard and considering the various' methods used --stream flow, a correlation between stream flow and rainfall, etc. Staff should then report on their conclusions. If there was still disagreement, they could meet with District - elected officials to reacn a compromise. If no compromise could be reached, he did not want the matter to drag on further. They were lucky because 1983-84 was relatively dry, with no floods. He did not want to worry in 1984-85 when it rained and no flood dis- trict work was done and they were one year closer to the inevi- table flood on Barron and Matadero creeks. He urged action with a realistic compromise --experts could disagree and both be right. Philip La Riviere, 453 Tennessee Lane, said the consultant's ap- proach was elegant in its simplicity. To find the 100 year depth in the basin, they started with rainfall data, calibrated runoff on a gauge stream in the water shed, and cranked up a dynamic sim- ulation model. The maximum depth for each year was combined in a frequency plot and extrapolated to a one percent case. As the consultant said, flood data could be found from study of the peri- od of analysis, avoiding the necessity of making choices as was done by the District. A panel of experts also supported the simu- lation technique when it reviewed the SCVWD's methodology in 1976, and recommended adoption of a dynamic model for runoff simulation, into which any desired rainfall could be inserted and a time - dependent runoff calculated. The consultant's report showed the power of the method. Mr:. Linsley authored textbooks, taught courses, and was a principal contributor to articles on hydrology. He compared the ease of following the description of his methodo- logy with that of the SCVWD, which was impossible to understand. No straight answer could be given on any question. Reference was made to an amateur photograph of a 2.4 feat elevation in the flood basin compared with a fence post, and he believed such data should be categorically rejected. The depths in the flood basin should be based on the staff gauge at the opposite end of the basin. Jack Kittle, 301 Stanford Avenue, worked as a hydrologist for more than nine years and was taught the consultant's method at Georgia Tech in 1974. Currently in EPA -sponsored works he assisted various agencies in applying such methods in local flood studies, and taught courses. He also knew other methods, and believed the barrier against the consultant's methodology was lack of available data and money. He disagreed with the statements of the SCVWD Chairman that the consultant's method was not generally accepted, and a member of a weekly group researching ecological land use planning, he was troubled by page 26 of the consultant's report which said urbanization in Palo Alto might be a cause of the over - prediction of the flows of 1952-68. A comparison of simulations of 1956, 1958, 1982 and 198.3 on page 30 led him to believe that the interference with the natu aal infiltration processes as a- resu't of new structures caused substantial nigher creek flows. He asked the Council to consider the impact of ongoing new devel- opments in 10 or 20 years on the flows in the basins. Joe Hirsch, 4149 (Georgia Avenue, was impressed by the constant reference in the consultant's report to close agreement between observed and simulated data, particularly since the observed data was based upon Palo Alto figures. He was equally disturbed that the SCVWD did not have updated 1976 data, In some resrects, people were asked to have faith in earlier calculations, and he wanted to see an updating based on new data from the major storms of the past few years. He wanted the consultants to use the SCVWD data and vice versa. The question deserved full study because any work would be in place for a long time. 4 4 8 3 4/30/84 MUIION: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Woolley, as follows: 1. Staff to work with the consultant and the representatives of the SCVWD in an effort to: a) reconcile differences; and b) if impossible, clarify the disagreement between the consultant's report and the SCVWD recommendations; 2. Refer the item to the Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee for review and comment by both parties. Vice Mayor Levy clarified that Council agreed with the policy to protect. against the 100 year flood. Problems arose on the details, their reconciliation, and what constituted a 100 year flood. It was important that staff work closely with the SCVWD and the consultants in reconciling the data, and for it to go to the P&P Committee where detailed discussions could be held. The Council would benefit by the P&P. Committee and the public reviewing the information first. Mayor Klein suggested an amendment at the end of section (2) of the motion to read "within a reasonable time (between now and the end of the year)" to allow the P&P Committee to make its own study of the issue. MA rR AND SECOND OF MOTION INCORPORATED THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE AT THE END OF SECTION (2) : "WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME (BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF THE YEAR)." Councilmember Witherspoon supported both parts of the motion, but believed Council also needed to make a policy decision about improvements upstream. She asked how the problem would be solved and whether the SCVWD would wait on those until the P&P Committee made its recommendation and the Council acted. Councilmember Renzel said no upstream improvements were scheduled for that year, but some planning would go forward. There was insufficient money for the upstream work, but it was scheduled for the following year. If the flood basin wall was Found to be unnecessary, the money could be used to complete the first stage of upstream improvements the following year. The SCVWD indicated two months was acceptable for analysis of the data, and she sug- gested a more definite time frame for• the issue to return from the P&P Committee. Mr. Zaner said it would take the District 60 days to make its analysis, and the amendment would cut off all time to negotiate or compromise. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved that the question returned to the P&P Committee within ninety days. Mr. Zaner said the amendment would constrain staff to drop all other work and take up the project during the 30 day period before December 31 to make a decision. He understood the motion was to get the information back to P&P, Committee in time for both agencies to respond and give the Council a chance to make its decision prior to the last moment, and he assured that staff would return so the Council had adequate time. AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND Councilmember Renzel said she would support the motion with the understanding that staff would move along and not return to Council in late December. She assumed it would take months .before the issue was before the P&P Committee. The consultant's report was persuasive, and the SCVWD hydrology was difficult to 4 4 8 4 4/30/84 understand, and it was difficult to approve any flood basin wall w ithout a better persuasion from the SCVWD that there were prob- lems with the hydrology as presented by the City's consultant. She emphasized that fact so there were no illusions about the position they were in. It was important the Council be confident when developing a major project with environmental consequences such as marsh and view loss and protection of an area behind a wall that could not be seen and protected. There would be a ✓ isual barrier, and it was irrelevant whether it was a wall. or a dike. They were discussing an expenditure of more than $750,000 which could be used on bona fide upstream improvements which caused documented flooding. In the absence of evidence regarding the _ l _ - L _• l _• i _ _ of the Linsley i. t he reliability i ab i i i ty the L i ns l ey Kraeyer results, she asked the record to reflect that she was hard put to approve the project as proposed. Councilmember Bechtel requested the motion be divided into two parts. A referral to the P&P Committee meant a P&P Committee meeting, which staff would have to attend, and a repeat at the Council level_ A study session or P&P Committee meeting would take twice as much time, and they would not come out ahead. MOTION DIVIDED Councilmember Cobb said Council went off track from the original motion made 60 days ago to critique the SCVWD report. If a deci- sion was to he made, the questions attempted to understand whose approach was the most valid. He preferred the consultant's report because it went to the Barron Park problem quicker, but he wanted to ensure its credibility and to understand the differences. As staff worked with the District and the consultant, he hoped Council would learn- how to competently choose one approach over the other. Councilmember Sutorius said the motion implied continued engage- ment of the consultant, and he asked if it was a- pro bono offer. Mr. Zaner understood the consultant would work for a brief period of tine, but could not be expected to spend large amounts of time w ithout compensation. If - Bands remained in the budget amendment, the contract could be amended to cover some costs. If it became expensive, which he doubted, Staff would return to Council. Councilmember Sutorius believed the opportunity still existed to arrive at a beneficial conclusion for the residents and taxpayers o f Palo Alto, the SCVWD, and the taxpayers who Contributed to the total District bill. FIRST PART OF MOTION FOR STAFF TO WORK WITH THE CONSULTANT AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SCVWD TO RECONCILE DIFFERENCES OR CLARIFY DISAGREEMENTS PASSED unanimously, SECOND PART OF MOTION TO_. REFER THE ITEM TO THE PIP COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSE WITHIN A REASONABLE • TIME failed by a vote of A-5, Reniel , Woolley, Levy, Witherspoon voting *aye." Mayor Klein said since the second part of the motion failed, the staff report..would return to the full Council. ADJOURNMENT . Council . adjourned at 12:00 midnight. ATTEST: APPROVED: